In the Summer of 2010 a series of articles exposed
"Astroturf" lobbying by the Industry.

In politics, Astroturf lobbying is when a PR firm
creates an artificial grass roots movement by setting
up a local "citizen sponsored" website, or when the PR
firm's employees post comments to articles in the
local newspapers.

Astroturf lobbying by the camera Industry became
evident when petition drives to ban cameras in
several cities were met by "cookie cutter" opposition.

From BanCams.com. (Sorry, in this image
from the article, the links are not clickable!)

When the petition sponsors examined the pro-camera
websites, they were found to be owned and operated by
a Texas PR firm employed by ATS. On Aug. 13 and
17, BanCams.com wrote about the paid opposition.
Links:

Lest anyone get the impression that ATS is the sole
creator of "citizen supported" websites, here is one
attributed to RedFlex.
An Oct. 2010 Cleveland Plain
Dealer
investigation revealed that RedFlex helped
start Safe Roads Ohio and gave it $7500. The
Plain Dealer also pointed out that RedFlex' support
was not noted on a mailer Safe Roads sent out.
Nor (even as late as Jul. 2011) was RedFlex mentioned
anywhere on the website for Safe Roads.
Safe Roads describes itself as "grassroots."

At ATS, Some of
the Astroturf was Manufactured in the
Executive Suite, by a Ph.D.

In a May 17, 2011 article (archived
copy) the Daily Herald of Everett, Washington
(heraldnet.com) exposed extensive Astroturf commenting
on its red light camera articles - 43 pro-camera posts
by a person using the screen name W Howard. (He
also appeared on the bancams.com website - he is in
the example, above.)

The Herald traced
the W Howard posts back to the Arizona
office of ATS Vice President for Business
Development Bill Kroske Ph.D., whose
middle initial is "H." The Herald
article showed that Dr. Kroske had
posed as a concerned resident of Monroe,
Lynnwood, and Everett.

William H.
Kroske, Ph.D.

A later article in
the Spokane Spokesman-Review revealed that
Kroske had also posed as a resident of
that city, under the screen name Obie1.

On May 18 the stock
of ATS competitor RedFlex jumped 4%. (ATS
is privately held; the stock is not
publicly traded, although Goldman-Sachs is
known to own 1/3 of the shares. See
FAQ # 34 for further details about ATS'
finances.)

RedFlex
Stock Price, May 2011, in Aus$

Then, in a statement
given to the Herald on May 18, ATS
President and CEO James Tuton said:

"Such a lack of disclosure violates
not only ATS company policy, but also our
core values. While we
share in the commenter's passion for red
light safety cameras, we also recognize
the importance of honest engagement.
The employee in question has been
suspended indefinitely pending further
investigation.Furthermore,we are taking steps to make sure all
of our employees know that this type of
activity is unacceptable."[The
bolding has been added.]

ATS Founder
James Tuton

So, now that VP
Kroske is suspended, will Tuton be rooting
out the other ATS employees or vendors who
may be responsible for the huge number of
comments by "giggley," "yogilives,"
and the like? Or do they expect us
to believe that Kroske was sufficiently
prolific to be the source of all of it? Will ATS also be
firing Advarion, Inc., the PR firm behind
their cookie cutter "citizen supported"
pro-camera websites?

Mark
Rosenker monitoring tapes and equipment
at the CRP (Committee to Re-Elect
President Nixon) headquarters, June 29,
1972.
The Watergate break-in occurred on June
17.
Photo by Fred
J. Maroon

Mark
Rosenker, (Former) Senior Advisor to
NCSR

Starting in Apr.
2011, Rosenker, trading upon his
credential as a former chairman of the
National Transportation Safety
Board, published numerous pro-camera
"guest columns" in newspapers
around the country. In those columns
Rosenker mentioned his position as Senior
Advisor to the National
Coalition for Safer Roads but never
disclosed that the NCSR is operated
by ATS.
Rosenker left the NCSR in late 2011.

On March 31 someone (not me!) started an
"Anti-National-Coalition-for-Safer-Roads" page on
Facebook!

What about the 1000+ videos ATS began to distribute
on May 18? They were attributed to the NCSR,
with no mention of ATS, despite Mr. Tuton's pledge,
made on the same day, of "honest engagement."

About the ATS Video

ATS created a short video* which recounts, in the
words of family members, three fatal accidents. It
appears ATS bought space and inserted it into at
least a thousand websites.

The video began showing up on websites on May 18,
with more insertions occurring as late as May 30.

How to find the videos:

Each insertion of the video includes the words
"powerful video" in the introduction, so Google
["national coalition for safer roads" powerful
video] to find examples of the video.

An interesting detail: A large proportion of
the websites carrying the video are "Mom
Blogs." Per the website mombloggersclub.com,
there are at least 13,000 of these. Many
will host advertorials without mentioning that it
is a paid ad. The closest to a proper
disclosure was this, which I found at the bottom
of one site:

Disclosure Policy [for the
mommaven.com]

This blog is
a personal blog written and edited by me.
For questions about this blog, please
contact info @ themommaven.com. This
blog accepts forms of cash advertising,
sponsorship, paid insertions or other
forms of compensation. The owner(s) of
this blog is compensated to provide
opinion on products, services, websites
and various other topics. Even though the
owner(s) of this blog receives
compensation for our posts or
advertisements, we always give our honest
opinions, findings, beliefs, or
experiences on those topics or products.
The views and opinions expressed on this
blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any
product claim, statistic, quote or other
representation about a product or service
should be verified with the manufacturer,
provider or party in question. This blog
does contain content which might present a
conflict of interest. This content will
always be identified. To get your own
policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org

"Many bloggers are
embracing corporate relationships as they
seek to turn their Web hobbies into
businesses. Mom bloggers have been
especially courted because marketers believe
they are regarded as more authentic."

One of the brokers facilitating the insertion of
the ATS video into Mom Blogs was Global Influence
("A resourceful mommy media network"), based in
the Washington, DC area. On its site, it
says:

"Global Influence is a network of
nearly 1500 bloggers and social media users who
have chosen to receive campaign information
tailored specifically to their audience and to
Global Influence client needs. Founded by
Amy Lupold Bair of Resourceful Mommy Media....
formerly known as Momfluence..."

****

*This discussion is solely about the method
used by ATS to distribute their video, and
is not intended in any way to make light of, or in
any way minimize, the terrible tragedy suffered by
the families depicted in the video.

Another ATS VP
Bites the Dust

At the same time ATS
was suspending VP Bill Kroske, it was
firing another another top executive,
Senior VP Michael Lenza. The
company also filed suit against him, for
(allegedly) "diverting opportunities away
from ATS."

In May 2011 ATS
claimed (see CEO Tuton's statement, above)
to have a "Core Value" of "Honest
Engagement." But two months later
yet another secret ATS lobbyist was
exposed, this one in Texas. On July
12 KTRK (ABC) Houston wrote:

"In the back and forth
over red light cameras in Houston, there
is a question over who you can trust.
American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the
camera company, was looking to keep the
red light cameras on across the state,
so they hired nearly a dozen lobbyists,
including a well-known Houston police
officer in a deal we only found out
about once it was over.

"[Mark] Clark was paid at least $10,000
by ATS to fight a possible statewide
camera ban in Austin. It wasn't for work
in Houston, but camera opponents still
cried foul.

Mark
Clark, Houston Police Officer and
ATS Lobbyist

" 'People, naturally and rightly so,
trust when a police officer tells them
something; that they can be trusted and
what they're saying is true. When that
influence is being bought and paid for,
then the public can be deceived,' said
[camera opponent Byron] Schirmbeck.

"While Clark did disclose his deal to
the state, the city and the union, he
never said anything publicly. So when he
told Eyewitness News viewers last
weekend, 'We're glad the cameras are
back on. They never should have been
turned off to start with;' neither you
nor us had any idea he had worked for
the company at the same time he worked
for the union and the city.

" 'I gave viewers what they needed to
know. If you're worried about red light
cameras, don't run a red light,' Clark
said.

"Clark and ATS say their work together
is now over. However, so is the
legislative session which means there is
no need for any more lobbying. The
legislature, by the way, didn't ban
cameras statewide, and ATS won that
battle."

For a whole year,
starting in the Summer of 2010, ATS was pounded
in the press and on the 'Net for failing
to disclose its presence (and supporting
money) behind front people (like Rosenker,
Kroske and Clark) and front organizations
(like the NCSR and Keep Houston
Safe). You'd think that by the
following Summer ATS would have figured
out that bad press is bad for business -
but evidently they had not.

On Aug. 8, 2011, the ATS-operated NCSR
distributed a press
release which named six groups
participating in the NCSR - but didn't
mention the elephant in the room, ATS,
whose corporate officers constitute
a majority on the NCSR Board of
Directors.
(This press release also appeared many
other places, including
FamilyCarGuide.com, TheCarConnection.com,
and the Sacramento Bee.)

In early 2015 ATS
dodged questions about whether it was
financing a local PAC which paid people
$18 an hour to protest against an upcoming
ballot item to eliminate the cameras in
Arlington, Texas.
Article. (The ban won in a
landslide, with 59.5% of the vote, and the
cameras were shut down.)

More Police
Lining Up to Lobby for ATS

On Aug. 18, 2011 the Everett Daily Herald revealed
that in Lynnwood, Washington, the deputy chief
responsible for negotiating the City's red light
camera contract with ATS was asking the company about
employment at the same time she was negotiating the
contract, and the sergeant who ran the camera program
was offering to assist the company with lobbying and
marketing. See their emails to ATS athttp://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929
(archive
of article).

More Bad
Press for the Boys

On Oct. 11, 2011 the
Miami New Times ran an article
discussing the pasts of some of ATS'
employees in Florida.

Dr. Kroske Back
in 2012? Was He Ever Gone?

A July 2012 Press
Enterprise article
(archived
copy) revealed that in April 2012 -
ten months after CEO James Tuton stated he
was "suspended indefinitely," Dr. William
Kroske was still working for ATS, and he
was working hard. He was putting
together a lawsuit to force an anti-camera
initiative off the Nov. 2012 ballot in
Murrieta. His emails to the City,
obtained via a Public Records Act request,
showed him looking for a local
entity or person to "front" the lawsuit,
as the plaintiff.In the PE article,
ATS Vice President Charles Territo was
quoted as saying of Kroske,

"He was allowed to
keep his email address as he closed out
his relationships with customers he had
been directly involved with during his
tenure." "He was not authorized nor was he
instructed to make any outreach on behalf
of the company on this particular issue."

ATS' name did not
appear as plaintiff on the Murrieta
lawsuit, and ATS has refused to admit that
it is funding the suit. For more
information about the lawsuit, see the
Murrieta Documents page.

Statistical Sleight of Hand from ATS

In April 2013 ATS
distributed a memo containing this
graph...

...and claimed that
two months after ticketing was suspended
in Murrieta, violations had increased
86.9%.

The way ATS obtained
that high percentage - by cherry picking
the data - teaches us some important
lessons:
1. Don't let an interested
party such as the camera company - or even
the police department - produce the
analysis of the system performance.
2. Don't let interested parties
control the only copies of the raw data.
3. Don't believe a company when they
say - as ATS did in 2011 (above) - that
they have a policy of "honest engagement."

For more about ATS
and how they produced this graph, see the
Murrieta
Docs page.

2.
Conventional Lobbying

The Industry also
invests heavily in conventional
lobbying.

An Apr. 2011 article
in the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant
revealed that the Industry, and two
interested cities, had engaged seven
lobby firms to push for pro-camera
legislation by the Connecticut
legislature.

An Aug. 2011 article
in the Orlando (Florida) Sun Sentinel
revealed that ATS spent $1.5 million to
lobby in that state.

In Sept. 2011 the
National Motorists Assn. published an article
about some of the more underhanded
examples of lobbying.

On Dec. 6, 2011 RedFlex held a little press
conference at an intersection in Chandler, Arizona, to
try to get Phoenix-area cities to try its collision
avoidance system, called Halo. During their
interview, reporter Diane Ryan from Fox 10
asked RedFlex spokesman Tom Herrmann, "Have you tried
this [collision avoidance] anywhere else?" Herrmann
replied, "We have done a test, in Northern California,
and it was very successful."

Herrmann didn't name the city, but that test was in
Marysville. The Chief of Police there was
surprised when I told him, in December 2011, that
RedFlex had called the Marysville test "very
successful." The chief noted that since the
Marysville contract had just been approved in June (of
2011), it was too early to tell if the
Marysville system was a success.

Six months later, it still was too early to
tell: In May 2012 I filed a public records
request with Marysville, for "All writings,
presentations or communications concerning the City's
collision avoidance system." The city clerk
replied: "There is not any information regarding
the Collision Pre-emption System."

I inquired again in May 2013. Still no
information. I inquired again in Apr.
2014 and again in Feb. 2015 and both times there was
no new information about Marysville's Halo
system. In May 2016 Marysville shut its cameras
down - and there still was no information about the
performance of the City's Halo system.

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have
the arranging of them myself; in which case the
remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with
justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"Mark Twain, American author and humorist, 1835
- 1910

The Industry sponsors a lot of studies but
fails to make the most important kind. For
example:

In Sep. 2010 I saw a guest
editorial (archived
copy) [City's red-light cameras are mitigation
tools, not 'cash-extracting' machines], where the
author, a traffic engineer employed by the City of
Bakersfield, said that the cameras' primary purpose is
to gather data so that "mitigation measures may be
devised." In other words, the pictures, etc., of
red light runners and accidents will tell the City's
engineers what to change in order to cut
accidents. His piece was 604 words long, but he
did not tell us whether mitigation measures had actually
been devised since 2003, the year the cameras were
installed in Bakersfield.

Now it's 2016, and thirteen years should have been long
enough for Bakersfield engineers to study the data and
install simple/cheap mitigation measures, like brighter
street light bulbs at camera enforced intersections,
more and bigger warning signs, better pavement markings,
bigger diameter red lights and more of them, and longer
yellows. We hope the Bakersfield paper will be so kind
as to grant the City engineer a new guest appearance in
their columns, so he can tell us about the studies they
have made and the mitigation measures they have
installed, to stop the running.

Most cities have failed to study or install
mitigation measures, despite having had cameras for
many years. Perhaps it is because they know that
such measures would show that the cameras never were
necessary. See FAQ # 6,
Alternatives to Cameras.

Because
it would raise the sort of question
posed above - Why hasn't the city
installed mitigation measures?) - the
Industry doesn't want the public to
focus on any particular city or
town. To distract us, the
Industry churns out state-wide or
nationwide studies, often by the
authoritative-sounding Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
always touting the safety benefits of
red light cameras. These studies
are widely available in the popular
media, and many are listed on an Industry
site, so will not be listed
here.

Camera
opponents point to several studies
of studies:

1. The 2004 Burkey/Obeng
study, which criticized and reworked
a large pro-camera study by the IIHS.

"Q: Of the seven studies
identified by the NHTSA compendium as the best
observational RLC research, is there any consensus
in the findings?"

"A: There is convergence: None of the
seven studies identified as the best in design and
data in the NHTSA's compendium statistically
permits concluding RLCs provide a safety benefit."

"A common error among inexperienced researchers is
to make simple before and after
comparisons." "This reveals the complexity
of conducting public health research because an
outcome can be incorrectly attributed to an
intervention if variables necessary to explain the
outcome are excluded."

None of us should blindly bet his or her life on
studies from either side, just because the studies are
numerous or appear to be independent and
rigorous. Read thisarticleabout studies in the field of medicine; it will
open your eyes about all kinds of studies.

Returning to the field of red light cameras, the
June 2014 Grand Jury
investigation into the Marysville (California)
camera program was another eye-opener. Their
report harshly questioned the City's safety and
financial claims:

"This investigation found that generally the City of
Marysville has provided conflicting, non-relevant, and/or unsupportable data to
justify the use of RLCs within City boundaries. Data provided by the City of Marysville do not
correspond to data available through State-maintained
collision databases."
From page 62 of the report linked above. (In May
2016 Marysville ended their camera program.)

Then there is this, from another Grand
Jury:

"Citrus Heights chronically and systematically
ignores its own policies for oversight, testing,
monitoring, maintenance and record keeping."See Set # 5 on the Citrus Heights Docs page
for more info. To read reports from other Grand
Juries, see Grand Jury in highwayrobbery.net's Site
Index.

My personal inclination is to
give more weight to what I hear from the local
officials who, after years of hands-on experience with
red light cameras, see through the safety claims and
choose to speak out. See box below.

CANDOR FROM OFFICIALS

- In More Than Twenty Cities

City of San Francisco (downsized in Fall
2016 - cameras installed in late 1996 -
California's oldest program still
running): Beginning in September 2016 the
City of San Francisco reduced ticketing by 80%;
during 2017 they issued a total 2727 tickets
compared to the average 13,515 tickets they
issued in 2014 and 2015.

San Francisco's cutback was deliberate and
planned, per a letter highwayrobbery.net
received from City Traffic Engineer Ricardo Olea
in May 2016:

"You are correct that engineering changes are
the most effective way to reduce red light
running crashes. We’ve had a long-standing
record of improving intersection safety
through signal upgrade improvements and signal
timing changes." "We are in the process
of starting a new Red Light Camera contract
which will reduce the total number of
approaches being enforced in San Francisco,
keeping some locations we believe are still
needed based on crash and citation history."

How did San Francisco arrive at their decision
to downsize? In an Aug. 2015 report (Annual
Report 2014) SFMTA staff made the first of
a series of annual camera-by-camera
examinations of the effect the nineteen-year-old
program had had upon accidents and found that
the installation of a red light camera seldom
was followed by a drop in accidents.
Instead, the drops occurred after engineering
improvements like making the yellows longer,
adding an all-red interval (both of which are
cheap to do), the addition of an arrow for left
turns, or a general upgrade to the signal.

Example:

From San
Francisco's Annual Report 2014

In the next year's report (Annual Report
2015) staff conceded that one of the
cameras may have had no effect whatsoever. (See
page 12 of the pdf.)

The SFMTA's newest report, dated May 4, 2018 (Annual
Report 2016), properly narrowed the focus
to just those collisions caused by red light
violations. (See note 5 on page 2 of that
report.) The report showed that following
the installation of the cameras there were
accident reductions at only two of the nineteen
intersections studied. It should be read
side-by-side with the one-year-older Annual
Report 2015, as the older report provides
intersection-by-intersection dates and details
about the engineering improvements while the Annual
Report 2016 no longer does.

To our knowledge, the SFMTA has not published
the Annual Reports online; highwayrobbery.net
obtained them via public records requests.
To find copies of the reports, use this
link: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsSanFranContd.html#annualreport
or do a Google on - in quotation marks - "SFMTA
Red Light Camera Annual Report 2016" and then
scroll down to Set # 4 on the webpage which will
come up.

City of San Leandro, California (cameras
installed in 2006, still operating in
2018): In 2016, as part of its
application to Caltrans for re-issuance of its
annual red light camera encroachment permit, the
City commissioned and submitted a study by an
independent engineering firm. From the
study, pages 6 and 10:

"After reviewing over 13 years of collision
data for the two intersections, our findings
are inconclusive with regards to an ARLE [red
light camera] reducing collisions." "For
whatever reason, it appears that the injury
plus fatality collision rate at signalized
intersections (with or without ARLE) has
decreased dramatically over the most recent
nine year period (when compared to the
previous nine year period). ARLE cannot
take credit for this reduction, because the
collision rate decreased more at signalized
intersections without ARLE." http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsSanLeanEncrPerm2016engrRepRecd2017jul26.pdf

City of Stockton, California (cameras
installed in 2004, closed in 2015): “Staff
determined the program was not cost neutral for
the city and found no evidence that it has
significantly reduced traffic collisions. In
February 2015, we sent Redflex a letter stating
we were terminating the contract."
Stockton police spokesman Joe Silva in 6-5-15
Stockton Record article. http://www.recordnet.com/article/20150605/NEWS/150609770
(archived
copy)

City of Laguna Woods, California (cameras
installed in 2005, closed June 2014):
"Staff studied incidents over a 10-year period
of time and found that the number of collisions
related to signal violations at the two photo
enforced intersections fluctuated slightly, but
did not change in any significant manner after
initiation of the red light photo enforcement
program." City Manager Christopher Macon
in staff report prepared for 5-28-14 council
item. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsLagunaWoodsContr2014MayStaffRep.pdf

City of Riverside, California (cameras
installed in 2006, closed Sept. 2014):
"Upon review CalTrans has determined that the
accident rates do not warrant the camera systems
at any of the five CalTrans locations and has
requested their removal." Riverside
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Thomas J.
Boyd, in report prepared for Public Safety
Committee meeting of 6-18-12, page 2-3.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsRivers2012JuneStaffRepCloseProg.pdf

More from Riverside: "It’s impossible to
attribute causality to one thing. I don’t know
whether and to what degree the red light cameras
have contributed to a reduction in traffic
crashes." Chief of Police Sergio Diaz.
Source: 7-14-12 Press Enterprise
article: http://www.pe.com/articles/-716731--.html
(archived
copy)

More from Riverside: "I have spoken
publicly against the program several times in
the past, once before the public safety
committee and twice before the entire council.
Each time, I expressed my dislike of the general
concept of the program, the unethical tactics
used to collect fees, inconclusive data
regarding their effectiveness, and the
realization of corporate profits at the expense
of our citizens. My position on these
matters has not changed." Retired 28-year
Riverside fire captain, in letter submitted for
the Oct. 2, 2012 city council meeting.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsRiversideContractOpinionByRetdFireCapt.pdf

City of Poway, California (cameras
installed in 2004, removed in 2013): "On
March 5, 2013, the City Council addressed the
potential termination of the program and
directed staff to turn off the cameras and
evaluate the program's safety benefit for a six
month period." "During the six month
period preceding the March 9, 2013 turn-off
date, there was a total of eight [later
corrected to seven] accidents at these three
intersections. During the six month period
after the March 9, 2013 turn-off date, there
were five accidents. This represents a
decrease in accidents of 37.5% [later corrected
to 28.6%]. There were no serious injury
accidents during this period." City
Manager, in report submitted for 10-15-13 city
council meeting.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsPowayContr2013octStaffRepAndTwoSupps.pdf

City of El Cajon, California (cameras
installed in 2002, removed in 2013): "On
February 26, 2013 the El Cajon City Council
voted to suspend the "Agreement" with Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc. for a period of six
months." "The data shows that from
February 27, 2013 to August 31, 2013, while the
cameras were covered, there were 39 reported
collisions at red-light photo enforcement
intersections as compared to 36 reported
collisions during the same time period in
2012." "Based on these comparisons, the
overall increase in traffic collisions is
statistically insignificant." Chief of
Police, in report submitted for 9-24-13 city
council meeting. Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsElCajonContr2013SeptStaffRep.pdf

City of Emeryville, California (cameras
installed in 2004, removed in 2012): "Staff also
analyzed the number of accidents for the
same seven year period and found that the
red light cameras did not significantly
impact the number of accidents."
"Finance has estimated that elimination of
the program would result in a $200,000 per
year savings to the City." Chief of
Police Kenneth James, in reports submitted
for 5-15-12 city council meeting.
Source: http://web01.emeryville.org/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=87&doctype=agenda
(archived
copy)

City of San Bernardino, California
(cameras installed in 2005, removed in
2012): "It was the consensus of the
Council that the City has lost business because
of the red light cameras and they're not making
the City any safer." Minutes, 1-24-11 city
council meeting. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsSanBernContr2011JanMins.pdf

City of El Monte, California (cameras
installed in 2003, removed in 2008): "A
comparison of traffic collisions at Redflex
monitored intersections vs. non-Redflex
monitored intersections revealed that there is
no statistical difference in the number of
traffic collisions because of Redflex
monitoring." Chief of Police Ken
Weldon, in memo presented at 10-21-08 council
meeting. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsElMonteContrTerminateWeldonMemo.pdf

More from El Monte: "We're spending a lot
of staff time on this just to gain $2000 a
month. It doesn't reduce accidents --
that's what our studies and results have come
back." City Manager James W. Mussenden.
Source: Granicus video of council meeting
of 10-21-08, at 1:28:40, available at City's
website.

City of Upland, California (cameras
installed in 2003, removed in 2009): "The
system appears to have little influence on the
number of red light related collisions at
monitored intersections. At times, rear
end collisions have actually increased."
Chief Steve Adams, in memo presented
at 3-9-09 council meeting.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsUplandStaffReport2009Mar9.pdf

City of Whittier, California (cameras
installed in 2004, removed in 2010):
"Initially, the red-light program did
change behaviors because it did lessen the
number of red-light violations but over the long
term it didn't appear to lessen the number of
injury accidents." Assistant City Manager
Nancy Mendez.
Source: 12-6-10 Whittier Daily News http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsWhittierArticleProgTerminated.pdf

City of Loma Linda, California (cameras
installed in 2006, removed in 2010): "I
believe these red light cameras are ways for
city governments to legally extort money from
their citizens." "The month after we
lengthened the yellow light by one second, the
number of violations that we have seen dropped
by 90 percent." Mayor Rhodes Rigsby, M.D.
Source: KABC - TV, 12-3-10, http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7824510
(archived
copy)

City of Gardena, California (cameras
installed in 2005, removed in 2011): "Our
research in Gardena has revealed there is no
significant traffic safety impact as a result of
the use of the red light cameras. At almost
every intersection where we have cameras,
collisions have remained the same, decreased
very slightly, or increased depending on the
intersection you examine. When combining the
statistics of all the intersections, the overall
consensus is that there is not a noticeable
safety enhancement to the public." Chief
of Police Edward Medrano, in memo presented at
2-9-10 council meeting. Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsGardenaContr2010staffRepFull.pdf

City of Bell Gardens, California
(cameras installed in 2009, removed in
2012): "To date, 95% of the funds
collected from verifiable violations have been
paid to RedFlex Traffic Systems for operating
the cameras. The remaining 5% of funds
collected have been utilized to partially offset
costs of personnel to manage the system.
The red light camera program has contributed to
a moderate decrease in the overall number of
accidents; however, no change in the overall
number of injury accidents. Furthermore, the
police department has recognized unanticipated
personnel costs to manage the program.
Based on this analysis, the red light camera
program is not significant enough of a community
safety benefit to justify the continuation of
the program beyond the existing three (3) year
agreement term that expires on March 29,
2012." Staff report presented at 9-26-11
council meeting. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsBellGdnsContr2011staffRep.pdf

City of Hayward, California (cameras
installed in 2008, removed in 2013): "In
response to Council Member Zermeño's question
for reasons why cities chose to drop out of the
Red Light Camera program... City Manager David
commented that another reason was the lack of
strong evidence in the industry that red light
cameras were effective in reducing collisions."Minutes, 10-11-11 council meeting. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsHaywardStaffRep2011Oct11mins.pdf

More from Hayward: “There is no concrete
data that supports the fact that red light
cameras are supposed to reduce
collisions." “That’s not been our
experience here in Hayward. We’ve had much
better results with a redeployment of our motor
officers. I think that having that personal
contact with our community members makes a
lasting impression. It’s an opportunity for us
to change behavior when it’s wrong versus
getting a ticket in the mail 2-4 weeks down the
road.” Police Chief Diane Urban, during
3-5-13 city council meeting. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/06/hayward-to-get-rid-of-red-light-cameras/
(archived
copy)

City of Hawthorne, California (cameras
installed in 2004, still operating as of
2018): "The hope is that driving behavior
is corrected, not just through that intersection
but through the rest of the time you're driving
here." "You need to study accidents
overall. Some of the data that you don't
have is accidents for their entirety in our
city. You know what, you're right, they're
not going down. I wish they were."
Hawthorne Police Captain Keith Kauffman, during
3-13-12 city council meeting. (In late
2015 Kauffman became Chief of Police in the City
of Redondo Beach.) http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsHawthMain.html#Council2012

City of Escondido, California (cameras
installed in 2004, removed in 2013):
"Staff's analysis is, the data on accident rates
is inconclusive." "We didn't find any change
between photo enforced intersections and
citywide. You're just as likely to be injured at
a photo enforced intersection as you are
citywide. So we didn't find anything to
demonstrate that severity had been reduced."
"Photo enforcement has the highest cost of
all the countermeasures." Escondido
Assistant Director of Public Works Julie
Procopio. Source: Video of council
meeting of 8-21-13, at 1:26:50, available on
City's official archive site, at http://escondido2.12milesout.com/

Slide shown by staff at 8-21-13 Escondido
council meeting.

More from Escondido: "Some of the best
footage of really drastic collisions comes from
red light cameras." "The cameras are there, the
collisions still happen." Councilwoman Olga
Diaz. Source: Video of council meeting
of 8-21-13, at 1:30:00.

City of South Gate, California (cameras
installed in 2003, removed in 2013): "The
most disappointing thing from staff's perspective
is the lack of change in behavior at the
intersections." "If you look at the statistics
that were provided by RedFlex, you didn't see a
dramatic impact in the behavior over the
years. In fact, a limited correlation
between the implementation of RedFlex and the
change in behavior. That's disappointing in
the deployment, not just in this city, but
everywhere."City Manager Michael
Flad at council meeting of 9-10-13.
Source: audio
clipaudio
of full item

City of Moreno Valley, California (cameras
installed in 2008, removed in 2009, City of
Riverside camera on shared border removed in 2012
at Moreno Valley's request): "We took the
heat without having any control over it." “I’m
happy to see all those red light cameras go. …The
few people that like them just haven’t looked at
the reality of what it does. It takes away the
discretion of a police officer.” Moreno
Valley Mayor Richard Stewart. Source:
Riverside Press Enterprise article 8-6-12 http://www.pe.com/articles/camera-654226-riverside-city.html
(archived
copy)

The San Mateo County (California)
Superior Court (beginning in 2005 nine cities in
the County installed cameras and four still were
operating cameras as of 2018): "Are we
doing right by the public?" "It's
questionable whether the trade-offs are
appropriate." "There's a balance there, and I
don't think we have found it." CEO John
Fitton, San Mateo Superior Court, on 11-13-09.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsSanMateoCountyArticles2009Nov13CourtExecAngry.txt

City of Dunnellon, Florida: "Within
just a few months after removing the cameras the
positive feeling throughout the community was
palpable. Our business and new development has
greatly improved since removing them. People
were learning ways around town to avoid the
cameras, which is never good for business. Also,
rear end collisions went up considerably, so
safety was hardly a winning argument to keep
them. The revenue that the city lost due to
removing the cameras is a drop in the bucket
compared to the negative aura and loss of
business the city experienced. You can't put a
number on negativity. The yellow lights
had also been set to the minimum length allowed
by state law by the previous city manager, so
they were near entrapment-level cameras. We
noticed a reduction in accidents just by
lengthening the yellow light time months before
we removed the cameras. We also extended the red
light time in the opposite direction allowing
intersections to clear and this also made a huge
difference in accidents."

Source: Nathan Whitt, former mayor of
Dunnellon, in email received by highwayrobbery.net
on 6-16-17.

City
of SeaTac, Washington: "Councilman
Peter Kwon spent forty hours personally
reviewing the best available data on the
program's performance and was disturbed by what
he found. 'Over the last seven years it
actually shows collisions have increased at the
intersections where the cameras are located,'
city councilman Peter Kwon said. 'I don't mean
they've increased because traffic has increased.
Collisions in relation to total traffic flow
have increased -- the collision rate has
increased, which goes against what red light
cameras are supposed to do.' " From
article about SeaTac's 10-10-17 decision to end
its camera program. https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/63/6318.asp

City of Jacksonville, Florida:
"(Sheriff) Williams, who took office in 2015,
isn’t sold on their effectiveness. 'We know from
the data that it’s not really reducing crashes at
intersections,' he said. However, Williams
said he stuck with the program because he had high
hopes in a nascent and potentially life-saving
technology that was offered by the city’s
red-light camera vendor, Redflex. Known as
the Halo System, the cameras purportedly could
detect cars running a red light and delay the
opposing traffic signal from turning green until
the intersection was clear. The city
installed that technology at five intersections,
but Williams said it was riddled with problems
that limited its effectiveness. He said his
department concluded the 'technology just isn’t
there yet,' so he’s decided not to renew the
city’s red-light camera contract after it expires
at the end of this year." Florida
Times-Union, 8-10-17. Source:http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-08-10/sheriff-mike-williams-scuttles-jacksonville-s-red-light-camera-program
(archived
copy)

More from Peoria: "The Red Light Camera
Photo Enforcement Safety Program has not met the
goal of reducing collisions at the monitored
intersections, however, the goal of reducing the
frequency of red light violations has been
met." Chief of Police Roy W. Minter, in
staff report prepared for 9-13-11 council
meeting.
"Several basic crash statistics showed that the
numbers of key crash events (e.g., fatal
crashes, angle crashes, and total crashes)
actually increased after the
implementation." Soyoung Ahn, Associate
Prof. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, in
letter included in staff report prepared for
9-13-11 council meeting. Source: http://www.peoriaaz.gov/uploadedFiles/Peoriaaz/Departments/City_Council/Packets/2011/091311/09132011_ss_packet_amended.pdf
(archived
copy)

City of Hollywood, Florida (cameras
installed in 2010, closed in 2015): "We
have seen no substantive change in fatalities
between before red light cameras, four years
before, and four years after." "We have
also seen a dramatic increase in most
intersections of twice as much rear end
accidents occur after the red light camera
implementation as to before the red light camera
implementation. As a whole, there have been more
accidents at each intersection." "...those
locations that we originally picked, we picked
them because they were our high accident
intersections in the city." "Those
intersections still today remain our high
accident intersections, therefore requires us to
continue to do traffic enforcement there with or
without the cameras." Source: Chief
of Police Tomas Sanchez at Hollywood, Florida
city commission meeting of 7-8-15, beginning at
2:39:50 on City's online video. Transcript

Corpus Christi, Texas (cameras installed
in 2007, closed in April 2017): “My
recommendation after review is that we do not
renew this program, we cut ties and move
on. I think there's been some wins, some
single-digit drops in accidents and such, but
when you have this volume of traffic of hundreds
of thousands of vehicles crossing interactions
and you are moving numbers by single digits,
it's not real relevant. Again, we do not
renew.” Source: Chief of Police Mike
Markle at City of Corpus Christi council meeting
of 2-14-17, beginning at 3:26:30 on City's
online video. Also in the local news, at http://www.caller.com/story/news/local/2017/02/13/city-council-discuss-whether-red-light-cameras-working/97851396/

5.
Crash PhotosExamining the Crash Photos
the Industry Publishes

New 11-6-05,
more added 8-29-07, 8-3-09, 12-11-09, 8-7-12

I have attended over 1000 red light camera ticket
trials, and have noticed that the average Late Time on
a through (not turning) violation is about 0.4
seconds, with many tickets issued for violations of
0.1 second. Yet, the crash photos released by
the Industry nearly always depict violations that are
many seconds longer - unintentional running that is
little reduced by the presence of cameras.
Or, the Industry photos depict crashes where, after a
little examination, it is clear that the running of a
red light was not the primary cause of the accident.
I did a Google photo search (images.google.com) for
"red light camera" and "photo enforcement" and came up
with the following.

Photo # 1

Source: October 2002 issue of ITS
International (itsinternational.com)

The photo above has been widely circulated. It
is from Ventura, California (Southbound Mills at
Dean), and shows an imminent accident. Someone
quickly reviewing the photo might assume it was caused
entirely by the white car. However, if we look
at the small white numbers in the black strip above
the image, we can see that the Late Time, the amount
of time that the white car's signal had been red, was
0.3 seconds ("TR 0.3"), and that the white car was in
Lane 1. (For more info on how to read Late
times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home
page.) That short Late Time raises the question
of how the green car got so far into the intersection
so quickly after the onset of his green. Did he
jump the green?
Furthermore, the speed of the white car is indicated
as being 51 MPH ("VS 051 MPH") - so in 0.3 second it
would cover 22 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal
turned red, it would have been 22 feet or less behind
the position depicted, probably with its nose well
past the limit line - not a violation.
I suggest that responsibility for the accident is
shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the
intersection was problematic (that's supposedly why
they put the camera there), and should have had an
"all red" interval of at least 0.5 second programmed
in the signal, and
2. The driver of the green car, who apparently
jumped his green light at high speed (note his skid
marks).
On a couple occasions in the past, I have asked the
Ventura PD about this photo. So far, no
additional information has been provided. Maybe,
now that I am publishing it with my interpretation,
they will respond with their own interpretation.

Photo # 2

Source: Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004,
Page B2 (washingtonpost.com)

The photo above, from Duke and Walker streets in
Alexandria, Virginia, shows an imminent accident
(unless everyone is very lucky). However, it
should be noted that the Late Time was 8.1 seconds
("R081"), and that the limit lines have been worn away
to the point where they could easily be overlooked,
and that the signal lights are on the far side of the
intersection.

Photo # 3

Source:
www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm

The photo above is from Mesa, Arizona. It should
be noted that the Late Time was 33.4 seconds ("R334").
The next photo, below, is from the same intersection.

Photo # 4

Source: www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm
This photo above is also from Mesa, the same
intersection, one week later. Note that the Late
Time was 45.2 seconds ("R452"). If drivers are
totally failing to notice that the light is red, maybe
the City needs to put up bigger lights, or more of
them. These pictures were taken in 1997.
It would be interesting to inquire as to what
improvements the City has made to the intersection in
the years since then.

Photos # 5(a) - (c)

Source:
http://www.mesaaz.gov/POLICE/photo-enforcement/photos.aspx

The three photos above are from a Aug. 17, 2006 crash
in Mesa, Arizona and have been used extensively as a
red light camera sales tool in other states.
The MPD did not provide a caption or other information
about the accident depicted.
Someone quickly reviewing the photos could assume that
the red SUV caused the accident, but it's not that
simple.
If we look at the small white numbers in the black
strip above the first photo, we can see that the Late
Time, the amount of time that the SUV's signal had
been red, was 0.2 second ("RTIME 0.2"). (For
more info on how to read Late Times, see the purple
box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.) The SUV's
speed is indicated as 30 MPH, so in 0.2 sec. it would
cover 9 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal
turned red, the SUV was 9 feet or less behind the
position depicted in the first photo, which would mean
that its front bumper (and probably much more) would
be past the first line of the cross walk. In
California and many other states, that would not be a
violation. But in Arizona - it is a
violation!
Why?
Arizona law
says:...vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal
alone shall stop before entering the
intersection..."
and then goes on to define
"intersection" as:"...the area embraced within
the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb
lines...."
So, in Arizona you have to get the front of your car
past the "prolongation" - the thinnest white line
(I've added a yellow arrow in the second photo above)
- before the light goes red, or it is a
violation. And, since you are expected to
actually make your stop before the crosswalk (so that
you're not blocking pedestrians), the net effect is
that you will have 12 - 15 feet less room (crosswalks
are 10 -12 feet wide) to stop in Arizona than at a
California intersection having the same length of
yellow. That's equivalent to having a yellow
that is 0.3 second shorter.

Discussion of the accident continues below
this box.

Attempts to Change
Arizona's Definition of "Intersection"

In early 2016 a bill
was introduced in the Arizona legislature, to
change the definition of "intersection."
It is HB 2593. Will it pass?

In 2013: During the July 26, 2013
Arizona Illustrated Politics show
(TucsonWeekly.com), Host Jim Nintzel, Tucson
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Lea
Marquez-Peterson, former state lawmaker Frank
Antenori and former Pima County Democratic
Party chairman Jeff Rogers talked about
Arizona's definition of the limit line.

Host Host Jim
Nintzel: Speaking of signature
gathering, Frank, were you disappointed when
we learned this week that John Kromko had not
gathered enough signatures to put his red
light proposition on the ballot?

Frank Antenori: His downfall was the
majority of folks were not within the city
limits of Tucson. A lot of people have a
Tucson address that live outside the city, and
that created a lot of confusion with the
signature gatherers. Yeah, I'm really
disappointed but again as we talked earlier,
the solution is just simply define the
intersection in Arizona like it is in 48 other
states. Especially every other state
inside the lower 48 has the rule that it's the
stop line. We're the only state in the
lower 48 that said it's the prolongation of
the curb line, and that's creating all those
problems. And if you want to be fair about it,
that's the way you fix it. You don't
have to get rid of the cameras. Just
make the definition of an intersection the
same as every other state in the country.

Host: Jeff, you've actually agreed with
Frank on this point.

Jeff Rogers: Make it fair. It's
almost like you're tricking people. Any
rational person is going to think, "I'm over
the stop line into the intersection, the light
goes off and you go ahead and make your turn."
But no! It's the imaginary line
from the curbs. They've gone ahead and
painted some lines there to try to make it a
little less tricky. But still the law is
it's the imaginary lines. So, I have to
agree with Frank on that. Just make it
fair.

Host: If it had made it to the ballot,
how do you think it would have gone?

Rogers: I think that would have been a
close one.

Antenori: Every state and municipality
where that question's been put on, they've
gotten rid of the cameras. It's
overwhelming. Not one of them has
survived an initiative challenge - when it
made it to the ballot.

Rogers: And, especially here, if they
know how dishonest the intersection definition
is. That might have been enough.
If people just educate themselves on it.

Host: Any thoughts on these red lights?

Lea Marquez Peterson: Actually I wasn't
aware of that intersection definition.
That is interesting. Sounds like
it makes sense.

In 2011,
Arizona State
Senator Frank
Antenori sponsored
a bill to change
the legal
definition of an
intersection, but
on May 9, 2012
Gov. Jan Brewer
vetoed it. Article.

In Nov. 2009
an Arizona
resident got the
FHWA to rule
that these unusual
Limit Lines are
"non-compliant,"
but then lost
at court
when she tried to
use the
non-compliance as
a defense.

In Oct. 2007,
I asked the
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA) whether
there was an
effort being made
to mandate a
nationwide
standard for the
location of Limit
Lines. They
said "no" - that
that the Federal
government cannot
dictate the
states' traffic
laws. They
referred me to the
(now defunct)
National Committee
on Uniform Traffic
Laws and
Ordinances, which
published a
voluntary
nationwide
standard called
the Uniform
Vehicle
Code.
The UVC said:"Vehicular
traffic facing a
steady red
signal alone
shall stop at a
clearly marked
stop line, but
if none, before
entering the
crosswalk on the
near side of the
intersection..."

So who is responsible for
the accident pictured
above?

First we look at the
sedan's actions. In
the first photo, the light
has been red for only 0.2
sec., but the front of the
sedan is already well into
the SUV's lane. To get
there, the sedan traveled
about 20 feet beyond its
"safe" zone. If we
guess that the sedan moved
at an average of 10 MPH (
= 15 ft./sec.) up to that
point, it would have taken
1.3 sec. to move that
distance. Thus, the
sedan began its turn
approx. 1.1 second before
the light turned red.

Next we look at the SUV's
actions. The first
picture shows what appears
to be a clear violation -
the SUV is not yet past
the limit line, and is
facing a light that had
been red for 0.2
second. But the SUV
was braking hard at the
time the first photo was
taken, in response to the
sedan having begun its
turn some 1.1 secs. or
more before. (The
skid marks are visible in
the second photo.)
It's arguable that if the
SUV had not been forced to
brake, it would have made
it to the limit line 0.2
sec. or more sooner,
before the light went
red.

I suggest that
responsibility for this
accident is shared by:
1. The City, which
presumably knew that the
unprotected (no arrow)
left turning at the
intersection was unsafe
(they should have
installed an arrow, but
chose to put in a camera
instead), and
2. The driver of the
sedan, who carelessly
began his left turn
without checking to make
sure that opposing traffic
- which was not facing a
red light at the time he
began his turn - would
clear the intersection.

Arizona's unusual Limit
Line location seems to be
a trap for visitors from
out-of-state - and maybe
even some Arizona
residents. (See a
further example, in Photos
# 6, below.)

Photos #
6(a) - (b)

Source:
Peoria AZ Police
Department video, Sept.
2008

The photo above is
from another "That woulda
been legal in California"
accident from
Arizona. (See also
Photos # 5, above.)
Well OK, it "woulda been
legal" here in CA before
the ban on hand-held
cellphones. If you
play the video
(YouTube
copy) a frame at a
time, you can see that the
eastbound SUV was past the
first white line before
the light turned
red. The actual
Limit Line is not visible
in the video - in Peoria,
it is marked using red
"Thermo" tape, and I was
told that at this
intersection the tape is
just beyond the third
white line. It may
be the dark area in the
video. Below is an
aerial view of the
intersection, with yellow
lines added to indicate
the two possible Limit
Line locations - both of
which are two car lengths
beyond the Stop Line.

I suggest that
responsibility for this
accident is shared by:
1. The City, which
presumably knew that the
unprotected (no arrow)
left turning at the
intersection was unsafe
(they should have
installed an arrow, but
chose to put in a camera
instead), and
2. The driver of the
pickup, who carelessly
began his left turn 1.5
secs. before the light
turned red and without
checking to make sure that
opposing traffic - which
was not facing a red light
at the time he began his
turn - would
clear the intersection.

Photos #
7(a) - (b)

Source:
www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm

The photos (above) are
from the UK. The
caption for the photos
said:"The first
image was taken at 4.5
seconds [Late Time]after
the lights turned to
red, the second was
taken at 5.5 seconds."

Photos #
8(a) - (b)

Source:
www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm

The photos (above) are
also from the UK.
The caption said:"The built up
traffic suggests that
the light has been red
for some time and the
pedestrian has already
crossed half of the
road."
However, the caption did
not reveal the actual Late
Time, and it is hard to
read it in the
photos. But, since
the cumulative Late Time
in the second photo is 10+
seconds ("R10x"), the Late
Time in the first photo
must be 9+ seconds.

Photos #
9(a) - (b)

Source:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547893,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|31885|.asp
The photos above are from
the website of the
Washington, DC police
department, which added
the arrow pointing to the
red light. The
caption said:"These photos
were taken recently [June
2000] by the photo
enforcement camera at
the corner of New York
and New Jersey Avenues,
NW. They show just how
dangerous it is to run
red lights for both the
offending driver as well
as other motorists and
pedestrians."
Note that the late time
was 9.2 seconds, and that
the location has three
limit lines in quick
succession as well as a
lot of signage, which
could confuse
drivers. If this
location is experiencing a
lot of accidents, perhaps
the design and marking of
the intersection is a
contributing factor.

The photos above are from
the website of the
Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety. The
IIHS did not provide a
caption.
Note that the late times
were 6+ and 7+ seconds.

Photos # 12
(a) - (g)

In Aug. 2009 ATS (American
Traffic Solutions)
published a video "Montage"
(YouTube
copy) of seven
crashes as part of the
annual National Stop on
Red Week promotion.

(a) Motorcycle rider missed red by 4 secs. or
more, most likely due to inattention or impairment;
not on purpose. Cameras will not stop such
accidents.

Signals located right after cars emerge from dark
underpasses are known hazards and a popular site for
red light cameras. The local traffic engineers
need to put in larger diameter signal lights and
improve/better maintain the pavement markings.
Cameras can't stop the running.

Signal was red 3 secs. or more, so running probably
was due to inattention or impairment. Improve
pavement markings and visibility of the signals.
Arrest impaired drivers. Cameras cannot stop
such accidents.

(d) & (e) The drivers made a left turn
without checking for oncoming traffic. Since the
same accident is happening repeatedly at the same
intersection, maybe it is time for the traffic
engineers to install a left turn arrow for the cross
traffic. Cameras cannot stop such
accidents.

(f) This crash was probably due to confusion -
traffic cones, rainy day. Some accidents just
happen; cameras can't stop them. And it
can be argued that the initial flash of the camera may
have added to the driver’s confusion/distraction.

(g) We can't see the light the white truck was
facing, so there is no evidence that he had a red
light, or for how long. He probably is an older
driver or one with poor night vision, or otherwise
impaired, and even if his signal had been green would
have been just as likely to hit the poorly marked
traffic island and (overly sturdy) pole. As in
(f) above, the initial flash of the camera may have
been a contributing factor. Proper marking of
the "nose" of the island, and pole, is needed.

Overall, ATS' video collection fails to support the
use of red light cameras. A critic suggested
that ATS' pictures actually say:

"Look at all the accidents our cameras didn't
prevent."

Intererestingly, none of the seven accidents was a
right turn accident. You'd think that to justify the
company's heavy emphasis on right turn enforcement,
ATS would have provided footage of a few right turn
accidents.

Despite the fact that the majority of tickets issued
nationwide are for a Late Time of less than 1/2
second, all of the accidents depicted showed cars that
were obviously multiple seconds late. Where's
the videos justifying the numerous 1/10th, 2/10th and
3/10th Late Time tickets?

Photos # 13 (a) -
(c)

These photos are from the three videos displayed on
the City of Glendale, California red light camera web
site in late 2009.

(a) This is southbound Glendale Ave. at
Broadway, in Glendale. The video's
(YouTube
copy) title, "A Big Truck at 55,"
suggests that the truck was doing 55 MPH ( = 81
ft./sec.). The still image above is the first
frame where the light was red.
The truck, which is just entering the frame, looks to
be 60 feet from the limit line. Per the signal
timing chart provided on the City's red light camera
website, the yellow for Glendale Avenue is 3.6 secs.
long. (Interestingly, the yellow for Broadway is
3.9 secs.) 3.6 secs is the minimum yellow in a
35 zone. But from this video, and from the
very high speed in the other nighttime video below, it
appears that this wide boulevard is allowed to operate
at higher speeds at night. Were the yellow to be
set at 4.3 secs., which is the minimum length required
in a 45 zone, this truck would not have violated the
red.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal
lights positioned on the "near" side.

(b) This is eastbound Colorado Blvd. at
Pacific Avenue. The video's
(YouTube
copy) title, "A 68 MPH Violation,"
suggests that the car was doing 68 MPH ( = 100
ft./sec.). The still image above is the frame
where the light was changing from green to yellow -
the yellow is strongly lit, and the green is just a
pinpoint of light.
The eastbound violator's car has not yet entered the
frame. Per the City's chart, the yellows in all
four directions are 3.9 seconds. (Unlike
Glendale/Broadway, above.)
In the image above, the light will not be red for
another 3.9 seconds but the left-turning truck has
already begun his (unprotected) left turn. The
truck driver probably underestimated the speed of the
oncoming car - or failed to see it coming.

A longer yellow, or a red light camera, might have
kept the car from violating the red, but it would not
necessarily have prevented the (near-) accident.
An accident like this could happen any time during the
signal cycle. All that is required is for
someone to carelessly begin a left turn without
checking oncoming traffic.

(c) This is eastbound Colorado/Pacific again.
The video can be viewed at "A
Near Collision" (YouTube
copy).
The still frame above was grabbed at the instant the
light was changing from yellow to red - as a result,
neither the red light nor the yellow light is visible.
The front of the taxi is already well into the sports
car's lane. To get there, the taxi traveled about 20
feet beyond its "safe" zone. If we guess that
the taxi moved at an average of 10 MPH ( = 15
ft./sec.) up to that point, it would have taken 1.3
sec. to move that distance. Thus, the taxi began
its turn at approx. 1.3 second before the light turned
red, and with oncoming traffic clearly visible.

As with (b) above, a longer yellow might have kept the
sports car from violating the red, but it would not
have prevented the (near-) accident. An accident
like this could happen any time during the signal
cycle. All that is required is for someone to
carelessly begin a left turn without checking oncoming
traffic.

Near-accidents (b) and (c) show that the City needs to
protect left-turners by installing a left-arrow.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal
lights positioned on the "near" side.

Interestingly, none of the three near-accidents
involved a right turn accident. You'd think that
to justify the City's heavy emphasis on right turn
enforcement, Glendale would have provided footage of a
few right turn accidents.

Late Note:

In 2012 Glendale closed their red light camera
program.

Photo # 14

In Dec. 2011 ATS (American Traffic Solutions)
published a number of video compilations of
crashes supposedly caused by red light running,
including one compilation of crashes in New Jersey
cities.

The Linden left-turn accident shown above (begins at
0:58 on the YouTube
videoalternate
copy) was not caused by a red light runner. The
lights were yellow (follow the white arrows added by
highwayrobbery.net). The left turner carelessly
started his left turn too soon, several seconds before
the light went red.

Did ATS fail to notice that the Linden segment was not
an example of red light running, or did they like the
violence in the video so much that they decided to put
it up anyway, hoping the public would be fooled?

The Linden police weren't fooled, though. A
"change report" page of their official Crash
Investigation Report assigned fault to the
premature left turner.

Photo # 15

In Aug. 2012 ATS (American Traffic Solutions) made a
promotional video featuring Tom and Lauren Hanley, an
Indianapolis couple whose 2010 wedding was ruined when
the driver of a shuttle bus carrying the wedding party
ran a red light and collided with another vehicle,
killing the groom's best friend and injuring
fourteen. The video was distributed by ATS'
front group, the National Coalition for Safer Roads.

The Hanley's advocacy for red light cameras carries
with it the suggestion that a red light camera would
have prevented this tragedy, and will prevent
recurrences, but the facts do not support their
conclusion. The shuttle bus driver didn't run the
light by just a fraction of a second. He wasn't
cutting it close, he just "blew" it. His light
had been red long enough for the large SUV he hit to
be more than half way across the intersection.
Either he didn't see that an intersection was coming
up, or didn't notice that the light was red, until it
was too late. It is understandable how he could
have overlooked the intersection and the signal - they
are poorly designed and badly maintained.

Missing Limit Line Paint, Westbound South Street at
Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Site of June 5, 2010
Fatal Crash

1. The limit line and crosswalk paint is worn out.
2. The signal heads are small with no backboards and
are on the far side of the wide intersection, amid the
visual clutter of the signal heads for the other
directions of traffic, a railway overpass, and large
industrial buildings.
3. The street name signs are on the far side of the
intersection, and are not illuminated.
4. There are no pavement markings warning,
"Signal Ahead."

From 200 feet away, you can't tell there's an
intersection there, at all.

There's an Intersection Ahead? South Street
Looking West 200' to Intersection with Delaware Street